summary and evaluation final draft

CTC 503: Assessment Task 2: Summary and evaluation of Dialogue and Proclamation - Candidate number: V42326

CTC503: Mission and Dialogue

Assessment Task 2: A summary and evaluation of Dialogue and

Proclamation.

(Jn 4:22)

Words have primary meanings that are determined by common usage.

Adjustments in meaning presuppose primary meanings as do the stipulative

definitions of academic or technical discussions. Tensions that exist between

concepts at one semantic level can carry over to another, even when

definitions try to mitigate this. Common usage defines dialogue as a

conversation between people with different views who are intent on learning

from one another. It leads to new understanding with the distance between

viewpoints decreasing as common ground is mutually discovered and

affirmed. In contrast, proclamation is a one-sided assertion that something is

the case. Acceptance is invited; discussion is inappropriate.

Given this inherent tension between the concepts, it is germane to consider

Church’s understanding of the relationship between the Christ-given mandate

to proclaim the Gospel to the nations and the post-Vatican II requirement to

enter into ‘dialogue and collaboration’1 with world religions. Does the Church

attempt to hold the terms together by situating them in a broader definition of

its missionary task? Are the relevant philosophical and theological implications

of proclamation made explicit in such a way as to make the two concepts

complementary rather than oppositional? Or does the Church simply give

priority to proclamation and propose an understanding of dialogue shorn of

certain features associated with that concept? In what follows I will present a

summary (printed in italics) of Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and

1 Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions, (28th October 1965) Vatican II, Nostra Aetate, 2,

1


Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of

Jesus Christ,2 one of the most important documents issued by the post-

Vatican II magisterium. In the commentary the issue of the coherence (or

otherwise) of DP will be considered. Does the document provide a plausible

integration of the ‘component elements’ or is the overall vision vitiated in some

way? Two further questions will be raised. Given the progression of certain key

ideas - the fundamental unity of humankind, the Word as the single source of

Revelation, the progressive self-communication of God to all humankind

culminating in the Christ-event, the reality of the logos spermatikos – is it

possible to discern in this document the contours of an emerging theology of

religions? Finally what are the implications of the so-called ‘regnocentric’

perspective both for the apparent tensions between proclamation and dialogue

and for the broader question of interreligious dialogue?

The document Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on

Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was

published in 1991, twenty five years after Vatican II’s Declaration Nostra

Aetate, a document that broke new ground by encouraging dialogue and

collaboration with Judaism and other world religions in order to promote

common spiritual and moral values. There have been a number of significant

antecedents to DP, including Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Ecclesiam Suam

(1964) and his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975) and Pope John

Paul II’s encyclicals Redemptor Hominis (1979) and Dominum et Vivificantem,

each anticipating or developing aspects of what would become a more

coherent dialogical approach and attitude. These and other documents, and

the discourses of Pope John Paul II in particular, cumulatively established the

foundations of interreligious dialogue. What remained was for Church to gather

the fragments of these insights into an explicit statement that would harmonise

the need for dialogue with the primordial duty to announce Jesus Christ to the

world. To this end, the first draft of what was to become Dialogue and

2

? Hereafter DP, dated May 1991 and jointly signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and Cardinal Jozef Tomko, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.

2


Proclamation was presented to the Plenary Assembly of the Secretariat for

Non-Christians in April 1987.

Document summary

DP consists of three parts sandwiched between an Introduction and a

Conclusion: Interreligious Dialogue (14-54); Proclaiming Jesus Christ (55-76);

and Interreligious Dialogue and Proclamation (77-86).

The Introduction (1-13) states the general aim of the document: to give

further consideration to the two ‘component elements’ (2) of the one

evangelising mission of the Church and to study their mutual relationship.

The principal grounds for the study of the relationship are the reality of

religious pluralism and an imperfect grasp of the significance of dialogue by

the Christian faithful. Further encouragement for study have been provided by

Pope John Paul II who emphasised the complementarity of proclamation and

dialogue and by the extraordinary Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986

when the pope met and prayed with leaders of several world faiths. Finally key

terms used in the document are clarified. The Church’s total mission is

evangelization and this is accomplished through a variety of activities including

proclamation (the communication of the Gospel message) and dialogue

(witness and exploration of respective religious convictions).

Interreligious Dialogue (14-54) unpacks the remark made in 53 that ‘the

Church’s commitment to dialogue … flows from God’s initiative in entering into

dialogue with humankind …’ God dialogues (in the broadest sense) with

creation; the Church – who shares the ultimate addressee’s (namely Jesus

Christ’s) self-awareness of the One who dialogues,– is bound to continue that

same dialogue.

Vatican II provided a positive assessment of religious traditions, employing

patristic language to indicate that other traditions (and not just individual

members of traditions) share in the ‘riches that a generous God has

3


distributed’ (16). God makes a covenant with characters who represent the

whole human race. There is but one, continuous story of God’s involvement

with humankind, one history of salvation for all peoples. Among the nations

Israel is gifted with a special awareness of salvation including an eventual

realisation that salvation is for all. Jesus embodies this realisation by

‘displaying an open attitude towards men and women who do not belong to the

chosen people of Israel’ (21) and by proclaiming a Kingdom that is not

confined to the people of Israel. A positive and generous approach to other

traditions is instanced by St Paul’s Areopagus speech and, in the post-

Apostolic period, in the work of Justin, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria

who develop a theology of history that is able to construe all history as

salvation history. Because all (human) awareness is oriented to radical self-

awareness, that is, awareness of man’s rootedness in God, then Christ as the

embodiment of that is both the culmination of history and the latent presence

in human awareness since the beginning of time. ‘Christianity already existed

“at the beginning of the human race”’ (25). This patristic vision helped to

inspire the Council to recognise the presence of the Holy Spirit in other

religions. However discernment is needed to recognise the work of the Spirit in

other traditions and Christians will need to challenge people in a peaceful spirit

with regard to their beliefs.

The Kingdom that Jesus inaugurated in his earthly mission is represented to

the world by the Church. When the members of other religious traditions live in

accordance with their consciences they are oriented to the Church. Indeed the

Church is called to discern the reality of the Kingdom in the lives of other

believers insofar as they are open to the Spirit. While the Church is the sign of

what the fullness of life and truth means for all human beings, her individual

members are not perfect. In order that her sacramental nature may be

experienced as such by others, she must seek reformation and renewal. She

engages in dialogue with other traditions and with humankind generally

because God relates Godself to people dialogically. The forms of interreligious

dialogue are varied and include open sharing with others, working for human

liberation, theological discussion and shared religious experience. Certain

4


dispositions, including openness to truth, are required of those who engage in

interreligious dialogue.

Proclaiming Jesus Christ (55-76). The mandate to proclaim the Gospel was

given by Jesus to the Church. It is Jesus as the embodiment and realisation of

the Kingdom who is proclaimed. The Church is the ‘seed and the beginning ’

(59) of the Kingdom. (Proclaiming) the word following the prompting of the

Holy Spirit is essential to the Church’s witness to the Kingdom and it is Christ

crucified and risen that forms the principal content of this witness. The

Church’s task is not exercised in a void since believers from other religions

through the sincere practice of their own traditions have already responded

positively to God’s offer of salvation through Christ. There is a pedagogy of

proclamation and the Church must respect the varying capacities of people to

hear the word. Proclamation must be (amongst other qualities) dialogical and

there must be progress from the ‘seeds of the word’ (70).

Interreligious Dialogue and Proclamation (77-86) are not ‘on the same

level’ but they are both ‘authentic elements’ (77) of evangelization. Jesus

Christ is to be proclaimed dialogically – in the Gospel spirit of dialogue with

due sensitivity to the circumstances. While interreligious dialogue promotes

‘truth and life’ (80) proclamation guides people to an explicit knowledge of

what God has achieved in Christ. Dialogue must be oriented towards

proclamation and Christians must be ready to give an account of ‘the hope that

is within them’ (82: I Pt 3:15) when this is called for.

Commentary

In his analysis of DP Dupuis refers to the risk of a ‘juxtaposition of the two

parts [ie dealing with dialogue and proclamation] without a perfect integration

of both’.3 Does DP actually suffer from imperfect integration? If there is

imperfection, how is this to be accounted for? Are the apparent tensions

generated by the conjoining of work by two distinct dicasteries or is there

3 Op. cit. p. 123

5


something inherent to the two ideas that makes that makes satisfactory

integration impossible? Interestingly Dupuis thinks that ‘to a great extent’ DP

has fulfilled its task. Taken by itself, Interreligious Dialogue seems to establish

a mutuality between dialogue and proclamation. While earlier drafts of the

document implied that the two were essential elements of the Church’s

evangelizing mission,4 the compromise formula in the final draft continues to

describe dialogue as ‘integral’ (9). Proclamation, while being the ‘foundation,

centre and summit’ can also be a ‘conversation’ that can lead to a deepening

of faith (10). The nuanced approach of Interreligious Dialogue to the two

‘component elements’ (2) is to a large extent a corollary of its development of

insights from Nostra aetate and Lumen gentium (16) that variously affirm the

presence of the Word in other religious traditions. A different kind of

background permeates Proclaiming Jesus Christ with its emphasis on the

efficacy of proclaiming Jesus Christ ‘confidently and perseveringly’ (67) when

the occasion presents itself. While both interreligious dialogue and

proclamation remain ‘authentic elements’ they are not considered to be ‘on the

same level’ (77). In spite of this, however, even Proclaiming Jesus Christ

concedes that the exemplar of proclamation, Jesus himself, ‘does not proclaim

by word alone, but with … actions, attitudes and options, indeed by means of

his whole life … (56). Dupuis feels that DP has demonstrated that dialogue

and proclamation are both distinct and necessary.5 It seems to me, however,

that Interreligious Dialogue paints with such a broad brush that any distinctive

contours of proclamation are not easily discernible. On the other hand

Proclaiming Jesus Christ stresses the centrality of proclamation to such an

extent that the sense in which dialogue is necessary is unclear.

To some extent, it could be said that, like Dialogue and Mission6, DP provides

a theological basis on which the practice of dialogue and proclamation could

be grounded. The development of ideas in Interreligious Dialogue – God

dialogues with hearers of the Word (ie all humankind) and the Church,

inspired by the mind the ‘dialoguee’ par excellence (Christ), maintains this

4 See Dupuis, Op. cit. p. 155

5 Op. cit. p. 1546 Dialogue and Mission, The Secretariat for Non-Christians (1984).

6


dialogue so that all may experience salvation – seems to me to suggest a

theological position that could open up a vein of ideas and insights for

interreligious dialogue. God is present and active in all creation through the

Word (17). What distinguishes Israel and ultimately Christianity is the quality of

its awareness, its ‘deep awareness,’ (20) of the covenantal relationship that

exists between God and humankind. Deep awareness – or radical self-

awareness – represents a decisive moment in the journey into Word-

awareness (from the Christian perspective, Jesus enjoys this uniquely). In the

story of the Samaritan woman, referred to in DM (21), Jesus tellingly says to

the woman ‘You worship what you do not know; we [ie the Jews] worship what

we do know.’ (Jn 4:22). What is required is not so much conversion to the

Jewish God as a full realisation of what is happening in (Samaritan) worship.

Michael Barnes remarks that the ‘new horizon’ (21) that Jesus opens up is not

just related to his Resurrection but to ‘the possibility of a ‘theology of history’

[…] to be precise, a vision of God’s progressive self-communication to all

humankind.’7 For this to occur all participants in a dialogue of religions would

need to give an ‘account of the hope that is within’ as a necessary condition for

movement towards deeper awareness. An Islamic commentary on DP states

that ‘… Christians should enter into dialogue with people of other faiths by

proclaiming their own faith to them. In our opinion, if it was accepted that

others might do the same, there would be no objection to it.’8

With reference to the question about the possible ‘imperfect integration’9 of

dialogue and proclamation in DP, it has been suggested10 that the tension

between the two reflects the two states of the Church with reference to the

Kingdom of God. Insofar as the Church is the pilgrim Church moving towards

the Kingdom, she dialogues with others. Insofar as she is the sacrament of the

Kingdom already present, she proclaims Jesus Christ in whom the Kingdom

7

? Michael Barnes SJ, Discerning the ‘Catholic Instinct’ in Dialogue and Proclamation ten years on.

8 See Dialogue and Proclamation on www.crvp.org/books/Series02/IIA-13/chapter_two

9 p. 5 supra

10 See Dupuis, op.cit., pp 155ff

7

http://www.crvp.org/books/Series02/IIA-13/chapter_two


has been established. The implication of DP (34-35) is that members of other

religious traditions (can) share in the Kingdom. Such a ‘regnocentric’

perspective enables us to see proclamation, not as a by-product of

‘ecclesiocentrism according to which mission would be intended for increasing

Church membership’11 but as a way of bringing into the open, or making more

explicit, truths to which people are already oriented. In the words of the

Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference ‘ … the Church’s proclamation meets

the deepest longings and aspirations of the human heart for liberation and

wholeness of life.’12 It is questionable, however, whether, from the perspective

of the other traditions, the sharing of what meets the ‘deepest longings’ can be

distinguished from proclamation as assertion. In such a context the perception

of a relaxation of tension between proclamation and dialogue may be more

unilateral than general.

(2429 words)

Further references

Pilgrimage Re-envisioned: Mission and Culture in the last five General Congregations: www.puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/dialogue/documents/articles/starclof_pilgrimage

Christ, the One Saviour of the World: Reflections on our emerging Christological question (1997): www.eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr97/huang

11 Op. cit. p. 157

12 From Some Theological Reflections on the Asian Context of Evangelisation, in Sedos Bulletin (15th February 1992), pp. 50-55

8

http://www.eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr97/huang

http://www.puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/dialogue/documents/articles/starclof_pilgrimage


9

summary and evaluation final draft

Documents